A TALE OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY.

For the last several years two debates have been swirling around
the notorious chemical dioxin. One debate has engaged real
scientists in the question, How dangerous is dioxin to humans and
to wildlife? The second debate has occurred within industries
that release dioxin into the environment and so will be directly
affected by the outcome of the science debate.

According to CHEMISTRY & INDUSTRY magazine (Feb. 18, 1991, pg.
112) the chlor-alkali industry (which produces chlorine, the use
of which by many other industries creates dioxin) "has taken an
active interest in the course of the scientific debate." In fact,
the Chlorine Institute--a trade association--is coordinating a
"public outreach program" to "capitalise [sic] on the outcome of
a recent Banbury conference on dioxin."

Could such a "public outreach program" have any effect? The NEW
YORK TIMES took a most unusual step August 15, 1991, when it
announced on page one that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was beginning a year-long review to develop "a new
formal opinion on the risks of dioxin." The TIMES often reports
that studies have been completed, but it rarely reports that
studies have been begun. Furthermore, SCIENCE magazine had
reported May 17, 1991 (pg. 911) that "(EPA) administrator William
Reilly has launched a major new effort to reassess the toxicity"
of dioxin--so the TIMES's August 15th news was three months old.

In the TIMES's August 15th story, EPA Administrator Reilly not
only announced that his agency was undertaking a year-long review
of dioxin toxicity, he also took the unusual step of suggesting
to the TIMES how the study would come out: "I don't want to
prejudge the issue, but we are seeing new information on dioxin
that suggests a lower risk assessment for dioxin should be
applied," Mr. Reilly told the TIMES. The next day the TIMES ran
an editorial praising federal officials for "sensibly considering
new evidence that could lead to relaxation of the current strict
and costly regulatory standards [for dioxin]." And three days
later the TIMES ran a second front-page story which began,
"Dioxin, once thought of as the most toxic chemical known, does
not deserve that reputation, according to many scientists." The
TIMES did not name any of the "many scientists." What "new
information" about dioxin has EPA Administrator Reilly found?
According to SCIENCE May 17th, the "new information" is a
"description [given to Mr. Reilly by two EPA scientists] of a
meeting last November at the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory that Reilly says made the most compelling case for
change [in EPA standards for dioxin]."

SCIENCE had written its own description of the Banbury Conference
Feb. 8, 1991 (pg. 624): Science said 38 dioxin researchers from
the U.S. and Europe met at Banbury and "reached an agreement that
surprised almost everyone." SCIENCE went on to say, "And this
unlikely agreement on how dioxin works at the molecular
level--and some hurried calculations scribbled on a
blackboard--could force a dramatic change in how the federal
government assesses the risk of this and similar carcinogens
[cancer-causing chemicals]."

However, two weeks later--February 22, 1991--SCIENCE reported
something quite different about the Banbury meeting ("Flap Erupts
Over Dioxin Meeting," pg. 866), revealing that the meeting had
been sponsored by the Chlorine Institute and that the Institute
had hired a public relations firm to circulate a summary of the
meeting claiming a "consensus" had been reached when in fact
nothing of the kind had happened. For example, one letter, from a
PR firm to the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, said, "The Banbury Conference was organized for the
express purpose of developing a scientific consensus concerning a
biological basis for risk assessment.... They were able to
achieve consensus."

However, independent scientists who had attended the Banbury
meeting dispute this view. For example, according to SCIENCE, Dr.
Ellen Silbergeld of the University of Maryland and "a number of
other participants" at the conference felt "manipulated and
misused." Silbergeld sent a letter to the Banbury Center's
director saying, "I am in fact rather astounded by such a product
from a Banbury Conference.... The press releases and statements
imply that a major focus of the conference was a discussion of
the regulatory risk assessments that have been applied to
dioxins; this was not the focus of this meeting." "I did not
expect to be manipulated by industry and government spokespeople
(who are not dioxin researchers, incidentally) to be made into a
supporter of their political views on dioxin and risk
assessment," Silbergeld said.

According to SCIENCE, the Chlorine Institute initiated the
Banbury Conference and paid for half of it. Science quoted The
Chlorine Institute's head of communications, saying the Institute
believed the meeting could be "beneficial to our interests,
particularly our interest in the paper industry." The use of
chlorine in industrial processes often leads to the creation of
dioxin as a by-product; the paper industry is under great
pressure to reduce its dioxin emissions. For example, the
newsletter ENVIRONMENT WEEK reported Feb. 14, 1991:

"A $1 million punitive damages award by a Mississippi jury last
October against Georgia Pacific [paper company] for alleged
dioxin pollution of the Leaf River has touched off a stampede of
similar suits against paper mills in Mississippi, Tennessee and
several other states. The legal actions, which involve thousands
of plaintiffs and billions of dollars in damage claims against
major paper companies, have begun to resemble the avalanche of
legal problems that hit the asbestos industry in the 1980s."

Enormous dioxin liabilities don't stop with the paper industry.
On July 10, 1991, a Missouri jury awarded $1.5 million to the
family of Alvin J. Overmann, a St. Louis trucker who died of
cancer; his workplace had been contaminated by dioxin. Several
hundred similar lawsuits are pending in the Missouri courts now
as a result of the contamination of the town of Times Beach.

Why might the NEW YORK TIMES participate in a public relations
campaign to promote the view that dioxin is less dangerous than
previously believed? James Ledbetter, a media columnist for New
York's VILLAGE VOICE said Aug. 27 (pg. 8) said, "For some reason,
August is dioxin revisionism month.... Once again, the chemical
industry is trying to bamboozle federal regulators and the
public, with the eager cooperation of the mainstream press," he
said, citing the TIMES. Ledbetter suggested that perhaps the
TIMES's "industrial-strength enthusiasm over eliminating 'strict
and costly' standards can be traced to the fact that the New York
Times Company has an 80 per cent interest in a Maine paper mill,
and a 49 per cent interest in three Canadian paper mills. Indeed,
on August 12, just four days before [the Times's] editorial ran,
two groups of Canadian Indians filed suit against Kimberly Clark
and the TIMES Company for $1.3 billion (Canadian), charging that
one of the mills has polluted three rivers with dioxin and other
toxins," Ledbetter said.

A two-day Citizens' Conference on Dioxin has been organized by an
international group of scientists and researchers. It will be
held Sept. 21-22 at the Omni Europa Hotel in Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.

The first day ("Defining the Problems") will feature three
sessions: (1) A Lay Person's Guide to Dioxins and Related
Compounds; (2) A Status Report on Dioxin's Impact on Human Health
and the Environment; and (3) Fraud and Manipulation in Dioxin
Studies.

The second day will feature "Solutions Promoted by Citizens": (1)
Clean Production, Waste Reduction and Zero Discharge; (2) Getting
the Chlorine Out of the Paper Industry; and (3) Banning
Incineration. To attend, phone Paul or Ellen Connett in Canton,
NY: (315) 379-9200. Fax: (315) 3790448. More on this important
event next week.
--Peter Montague, Ph.D.